or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Carving speed control - Page 4

Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsMan At one instant in time, imagine two skiers of equal weight going at the same speed at the apices of their respective carved turns. Imagine they are both doing 180 degree, traverse-to-traverse, perfectly carved, razor thin, RR-track turns. The better skier (#1) is executing a shorter radius (ie, higher-G) turn, with their skis far to the outside, and is actively extending at this point in preparation for a retraction-based cross-under transition which will occur a second or two later. The less skilled skier (#2) is executing a larger radius, lower-G turn, and /or may even be starting to sink in preparation for a later "up and over" extension-based transition. Skier #2 may even be settling back on his tails a bit at the apex because he is getting a bit defensive. Consider the force each of them is exerting on the snow in a direction perpendicular to their edged bases (ie, the "normal" force) at the apices of each of their turns. Skier #1 is exerting considerably more force in this direction (ie, into the snow) both because of the higher-G of his/her turn, as well as because of the phase he/she is at in his management of pressure (ie, extending). Skier #2 exerts less normal force into the snow at the apex of his turn because of the assumed lower-G of his turn, as well as because he is removing some pressure from his skis because he is either doing nothing or starting to flex instead of extending at this point in his turn. For most snow friction mechanisms (e.g., snow compaction, snow displacement, hydrodynamic base drag, etc.) the frictional force is almost perfectly proportional to the normal force that the ski exerts on the snow. Thus, compared to skier #2, skier #1 will be experiencing much more speed controlling friction when he/she is at the apex of his/her turn and his/her skis are pointed straight down the fall line. This frictional force on his/her skis is pointed uphill, directly opposite and subtracting from the down-slope component of gravity, and is occurring exactly when most needed. I think this explains SSH's observation that Nolo and Uncle Louie don't seem to be gaining speed even when they are in the fall line. Actually, they probably *are* gaining speed, just not as much as SSH expects based on his own experience. Next, consider what happens a second or two later to the two skers, when each is at the transition into the next turn. At this point, both are at opposite phases of their respective pressure management cycles. Skier #1 (using retraction / cross-under) will be flexing and exerting relatively less normal force on the snow. This has two major consequences. First, it allows him/her to carry as much across-the-hill speed as possible into the next turn, a good thing to ensure yet another high-G turn. Secondly, being light on the snow (ie, low friction) at this point in his turn doesn't mean that skier #1 will pick up additional speed because he/she is pointed (by assumption) directly across the hill and is, at least for the moment, effectively immune from gravity-induced acceleration. Skier #2, OTOH, will be experiencing the most friction at this point in his turns (a.k.a., a heavy "bottom" to his turns). Yes, it will cause him/her to scrub off speed, but all this really does is make his entry into the next turn more difficult (ie, approaching stalling), and contribute towards much more exaggerated fast-slow swings in his velocity. Skier #1 maintains a much more consistent velocity over his/her entire turn cycle. Thoughts? Tom / PM
You know what, Tom? I have missed you greatly this season, and I know you've been incredibly busy with your students. That said, I want to make something very, very clear (together with the reason that I quoted all of that):

You are freakin' brilliant!

You have, in a very scientific way that I can actually visualize and understand, described exactly what was going on and the difference that I observed. Furthermore, this is exactly what Uncle Louie and VSP observed and helped me begin to remedy.

Interestingly for me, skier #2 will compound his psychological problem as the accelleration increases his speed from turn to turn
, since his speed will increase to the point of bail-out (sounds familiar to me!). I am humbled by and grateful for both your insight and your ability to communicate it, my friend. Thank you!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsMan I would think that showing improvements in very specific measures like constancy of speed during the various phases of a turn, and then correlating these to techniques which have hitherto only been anecdotally favored would lift the overall level of our instruction, as well as be pretty strong ammunition in support of advanced instruction for recreational skiers.
I agree. This is one of the frustrations surrounding skiing and ski teaching for me: lots of anecdotes, conjecture, and subjective experience bandied about as scientific truth. (Note: not to say that everything is like this, but far too much for my comfort!) It would, indeed, be very nice to instrument and scientifically demonstrate this...
SSH,
None of us really knows more than a little. PhysicsMan did a very good job expanding on the F=ma, but I will try to add still a little more. Taken as a whole, you can draw a free-body diagram of the skier and his skis. Forces are applied to the snow by the skis and equal but oppositely directed forces are applied by the snow to the skis. Friction forces are always directed against the motion, but normal forces can vary. If you do a vector (i.e. including direction) integration (adding up) of the pressure * area you get a net force applied to the skier. Integrate this force over time and you get the change of momentum of the skier. Looking at the front and rear seperately gives some insight. Forces applied normal to the ski's surface on the bottom of the tip of a bent ski will have a component toward the rear of the ski. These forces add up to slow the skier down. Normal forces applied to the rear of a bent ski will have a component aimed at the front of the skier and will speed you up.

Looking at the total net force applied by the skis yields additional insight. Balanced (instantly done by human brain taking into account, friction, shape and stiffness characteristics of ski and desired turn shape) forces front and rear result in a net force toward the centre of the turn (the point from which the turn radius originates), the centrepetal force causing the centrepetal acceleration (my warped brain comes up with the balance that gives me maximum forward acceleration to go along with desired centrepetal acceleration; maybe your's does too ). Considering the motion of the cm seperately from the motion of the skis (but still using the freebody of the entire skier and skis), you can easily see how when this total force (or if you like you can do the thought experiment on any part thereof) is aimed at the centre of the turn with the centre of the turn being located downhill the force accelerates the skier downhill. When the net force is aimed at a centre of the turn that is located uphill of the skier the cm's rate of descent slows.

PhysicsMan,
Excellent!
My first thought is that the normal force argument doesn't work if you consider normal to the hill, otherwise race cars could increase their cornering force by turning tighter. However, if you look at normal to the surface acting between the ski and the snow (normal to the ski surface) it makes perfect sense. The only requirement is that the snow be solid enough to provide the force, which it must if he is making the turns.

Especially enlightening is your description of the skier who relies only on the increased friction of tighter turns to slow down, and not on applying pressure at the end of the turn. A much smoother method.

Turns soon became painful for my leg muscles. My old knee started to ache. It was getting near the end of the day, and a little voice inside my head was telling me not to schmuck myself on the "last" run (which turned into another and another). I have twice ignored that little voice and have many broken bones and life-long injuries to show for it.

I experimented with speed reduction techniques: (What a drag it is getting old...Rolling Stones). I noticed that pressuring the skis on the uphill portion of the curves (i.e. turning towards the fall line) even pressuring the tips at the start of the turn, did indeed send me faster down hill than mere gravity could acount for, but pressuring the the skis at the end of the turn slowed me down more. But what I did not think about until I read you post today is that my slowing was jerky. It probably was wearing out my legs all the faster than if I had just let myself ski at my normal speed and concentrated on making a few more turns. In all honesty though, I don't think I had any muscle ability left in my legs to bend those stiff skis that sharp by that point in the day. (Cue Rolling Stones again please.)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ghost Friction forces are always directed against the motion, but normal forces can vary. If you do a vector (i.e. including direction) integration (adding up) of the pressure * area you get a net force applied to the skier. Integrate this force over time and you get the change of momentum of the skier. Looking at the front and rear seperately gives some insight. Forces applied normal to the ski's surface on the bottom of the tip of a bent ski will have a component toward the rear of the ski. These forces add up to slow the skier down. Normal forces applied to the rear of a bent ski will have a component aimed at the front of the skier and will speed you up. Looking at the total net force applied by the skis yields additional insight. Balanced (instantly done by human brain taking into account, friction, shape and stiffness characteristics of ski and desired turn shape) forces front and rear result in a net force toward the centre of the turn (the point from which the turn radius originates), the centrepetal force causing the centrepetal acceleration (my warped brain comes up with the balance that gives me maximum forward acceleration to go along with desired centrepetal acceleration; maybe your's does too ). Considering the motion of the cm seperately from the motion of the skis (but still using the freebody of the entire skier and skis), you can easily see how when this total force (or if you like you can do the thought experiment on any part thereof) is aimed at the centre of the turn with the centre of the turn being located downhill the force accelerates the skier downhill. When the net force is aimed at a centre of the turn that is located uphill of the skier the cm's rate of descent slows.
I was with you right up until "you can easily see..."!!! I think it was your choice of the phrase "centre of the turn". I see the total force, but I don't see how it is "aimed at the centre of the turn".
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ghost I experimented with speed reduction techniques: (What a drag it is getting old...Rolling Stones). I noticed that pressuring the skis on the uphill portion of the curves (i.e. turning towards the fall line) even pressuring the tips at the start of the turn, did indeed send me faster down hill than mere gravity could acount for, but pressuring the the skis at the end of the turn slowed me down more. But what I did not think about until I read you post today is that my slowing was jerky. It probably was wearing out my legs all the faster than if I had just let myself ski at my normal speed and concentrated on making a few more turns. In all honesty though, I don't think I had any muscle ability left in my legs to bend those stiff skis that sharp by that point in the day. (Cue Rolling Stones again please.)
Which ski were you pressuring early in the turn? How much on the old outside/new inside ski (that, I found, is the key)? And the jerky is a likely sign of not "managing" the pressure of the turn as well as you could (if I understand the input I received this weekend well enough).
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ghost All that leaning forwards gave my quads quite a workout.
Ghost, interesting post.

What really got my curiosity up though is, if you were leaning forward so much why were your quads getting such a workout? I find my quads get a workout when I am not forward enough or back. When I ski balanced or forward my quads could go for days without tiring. My hams get tired.

What'd think?
I feel like you Aman. My hamstrings get used equally to more when I'm centered to forward. If Ghosts quads were tired from getting forward, my guess is that he was actully getting lower by flexing the lower joints and forcing the quad muscles to get more involved in maintaining posture. The getting forward would then come from flexing forward at the waist more. Then I haven't seen him skiing either, but I think the quads getting tired says alot.

Even after PM's excellent posts it still boils down to pressure control and progressive edgng movements, both onto the edge and off the edge doesn't it? I think it is harder to maintain progressive movements off the edge than onto the edge. I think the same can be said for being progresive in our pressure control. Easier to manage the increase than to manage the decrease in pressure. Put these both together and we have a level of finese needed that can easily escape us. just my thoughts. Later, Ricb.
I am now convinced that PhysicsMan was watching from the trees at Loveland last weekend..........NICE JOB.

Background---I'm 5-8 @ 173 and was skiing on my Crossfires (109-68-96) 14 M Radius, the 1st time I skied with Steve (ssh). I like dynamic, and use more angle and pressure than I "need" to get the job done. I try to create angles early and increase pressure progressivly through the turn, releasing (several ways) into the new turn quickly and usually nearly across the fall line.

I spotted a few quirks in Steve's skiing. He closes one wrist (no biggie there) and uses a small amount of vertical motion that isn't needed. I described this to him as a "squat". VSP working with another with the same issue described it as a "two part entry into the turn". That would be trying to use both cross over and vertical motion in the same turn.

Steve starts by "crossing over", then rising, and sinking again after passing the fall line. By rising, he reduces or can't create a significant angle, riding a flatter ski longer in the fall line, thereby increasing speed. Once he passes the fall line his body drops and the result is a quickly loaded ski. At this point either (1) the quickly loaded ski fails to hold or (2) evergy is transmitted so quickly to the ski that he must instantly direct that energy toward the next turn before finishing the first or (3) the stored energy is lost and an "extra" move is required to start the new turn.
The result is an increase of speed in the middle of the turn and the quick pressure applied to the ski(s) makes it tough to complete the turn to the point on the hill that I do . So he catches up !
I keep getting timed out-----so here is part 2 !

I worked with Steve to get rid of that vertical move. I asked that he ski with his finger tips touching his thighs, thereby making it hard to rise up. I also reinforced tipping the feet. We started with long radius, then medium, then short to try to eliminate the vertical body move in a variety of turns.
Ric (VSP) picked up the ball at this point. I'm not sure if Ric was aware of this thread or not when he worked with Steve, but we both saw the same thing in his movements.
Ric did a bunch of different drills with Steve (see previous posts), to strenghten aspects of the turn.

The result was a whole new turn shape and a more powerfull look. I'm sure it was a new feeling for Steve............now just don't forget it over the summer !!!

Steve----THANKS for the time on the hill together !
Ssh,
Any object in uniform circular motion, e.g. a stone spining on the end of a string, is accelerating (because it's direction is changing), and the direction of that acceleration is toward the centre of the circle it's travelling in. The force causing this motion is also pointed to the centre of the circle it's travelling in, and in the case of a stone on a string, is the tension force of the string. What I mean by "the centre of the turn" is that point on the slope where you would have to plant a peg about which to attach a rope of equal length to the radius of your turn to scribe the circle (1/2 circle actually) your skis are tracing on the snow.

I was probably pressuring more the outside ski, but I was making a definate effort to pressure both skis. My algorithm, if you will, was to crank the tips hard, with as much on the inside ski as I could without having it take off on a tighter turn than the outside one. These skis (old straight and stiff) did not show much tendancy to carve a turn untill you pressured the tips hard, and then would snap into a tight turn. The pressure needed to get them to carve a turn was very high, and the difference in pressure between one turn and a tighter turn was very small.

By the time I got around to trying out speed control, I was no longer concentrating on being smooth, I was just trying to get as much push as possible in an uphill direction whenever the opportunity presented itself. The magnitude of the jerk () I speak of is what I can envision from PhysicsMan's friction force explanation, and the fact that I was only applying the retarding forces on the bottom half of my turns.

Ric,
I think you are right. My quads were also used whenever I hit a big pile of slush that made my skis want to stay behind; I used the muscles on the front of my thighs to pull them forward from the knee. I suppose I could have let my boots do the work, but somehow this did not feel as good; it (not resisting with my quads and letting my shins take the load on the boot tongues) felt more like I would go "over the handlebars". I think the stuff that looked like water mixed in with the piles of slush was actually some kind of super-super glue. I definately was getting low over my front edges. In the past I could easily just fall asleep and let my boots hold me up with no strain on the legs to speak of. On that day, I moved my knees further ahead AND leaned further ahead to get the front edges to stop skimming and start carving. At the time, I just thought about getting forward and pressing down. I think I was managing the pressure on the front edges mostly by retracting the muscles in the front of my thighs by varying amounts. All I know for sure, is that it sure hurt by the end of the day.

I've also had sore hamstrings instead of thighs after highspeed days, when I've made mostly long radius turns. I have even felt the strain in my hamstrings on occasion during compressions at high speeds. I haven't torn one yet though .

Edit: For most days that I get to go skiing by my lonesome, I enjoy the feeling of stiffness and muscle soreness the next day. I also like to eat really spicy food. When I was a kid I liked the feeling of mercurochrome (or was it iodine?) stinging my cuts and scrapes. Maybe there's a connection.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ghost Any object in uniform circular motion, e.g. a stone spining on the end of a string, is accelerating (because it's direction is changing), and the direction of that acceleration is toward the centre of the circle it's travelling in. The force causing this motion is also pointed to the centre of the circle it's travelling in, and in the case of a stone on a string, is the tension force of the string. What I mean by "the centre of the turn" is that point on the slope where you would have to plant a peg about which to attach a rope of equal length to the radius of your turn to scribe the circle (1/2 circle actually) your skis are tracing on the snow.
I totally get this. What I don't get is how the "center of the turn" changes location in the way that you described. If I'm turning, the center of the turn is always the center of the arc. How can that be downhill of me?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncle Louie The result was a whole new turn shape and a more powerfull look. I'm sure it was a new feeling for Steve............now just don't forget it over the summer !!! Steve----THANKS for the time on the hill together !
Thanks for your insights, Greg, as you note here, they really helped a lot. The sensations were tremendous, and I'm going to use them to feed visualization all summer--and plan for our next outing together in December! :

Thanks for the time together, both on-snow and at (and after) dinner. 'Twas a delight!

### Movement

Sounds like your friends have more dynamic movement. Moving through the carve can result in tighter shape in the same distance verse static or less movement through the turn. Think of tipping the ski up on edge and riding it down the fall line on a gentle slope. Than try skating pumping foot to foot you will notice you will get tighter arcs w/ more shape. I am not saying that you are parked and your friends move. They may just have a better grasp on the movements needed to maintain the speed and not accelrate to drastically. Also are you guys on similar length skis with comparable dims? Because that could make a slight difference as well.
All - I just had a chance to come back and look at this thread. Thanks for all the kind words. Uncle Louie, I can assure you that no matter how much I would have liked to have been on the side of the run as you and SSH passed by that day, unfortunately, I was stuck here in DC.

Several things made it so easy to guess what was going on in SSH's skiing. First was his superb description of the incident. If every student was so precise, observant and used language so well, ski instruction would be tremendously easier.

Second, I've been thinking about these very issues for at least the past year. There have been threads on Epic and Snowheads where cross-under / cross-over have been discussed, but I have not been happy with the level of precision in the discussion. Similarly, I have sat through discussions of pressure management both here and in clinics where terms like "smoothness" and "early pressure" were used, but their exact meaning was unclear to me, and their relationship to the type of transition either wasn't discussed clearly , or it never occurred.

Finally, I've been working on many of the same issues in my own skiing (long way to go), so it was real easy to identify with the phenomena Steve was describing.

I'm looking forward to the summer as the time when it's possible to spend a bit more time on Epic and other forums and thrash out concepts when one can't easily get to a hill to try them.

Cheers,

Tom / PM

PS - SSH, I hate to do this to you, but in spite of your otherwise usually accurate content, you made a huge glaring error in post #91 of this thread. All that junk in red is complete utter BS. You better edit it out before it embarrasses both of us.
Shh,
When you make a c turn and are in the top half of the c the turn centre is downhill from you. When you are in the bottom half of the c, the turn centre is uphill from you.
Actually, the centre is only uphill of you when you are in the bottom left side of the c; half-way accross the c, you are into the top of the next turn doing a backwards c with the centre downhill from you.

It gets more complicated in that you are not really making a connected series of half circles, but rather changing the turn radius as you progress through the turn, approaching an infinate turn radius at the bottom of the c (transition to next turn), and a minimum turn radius in the fall line, to increase smoothness (and yielding maximum friction while in the fall line PM).
Better late than never.
I only got to finish reading the whole thread today (we had a rather dramatic discussion on skarved vs. carved turns with some personal attacks included on one of the Czech forums and at the same time we are discussing waisteering with the Germans - simply no time participate in three...)

IÂ´m sure everything thinkable has been discussed here and it would have to be a far better brain than mine to add something relevant.

Otoh, thereÂ´s a question I still want to ask:
how much of the above said could apply in turns described as follows (QUOTE):

"And they are throwing pretty quick turns (from transition to transition, perhaps 10-12 feet with only a divergence from the fall line of a foot or two)."

A divergence of one foot from the fall line sems to me almost like a hairpin in a slalom course - pretty straight in the fall line.
Might be a stupid question but: is there in such turns really time enough for all the things described to happen?
Checkracer,

A 12 foot arc length and a divergence from the chord of two feet is not a hair pin; it's a pretty big radius.

I took a long time to reply. Partly because I would rather wait and let someone else make a fool of himself; it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. However, there is no snow, so I must do something to procrastinate marking tests. Another reason I took so long is that it is a very hard question and required some thought.

My first thought was to say one couldn't possibly experience these parts of the turn while making such turns, such short movements. The begining and end of the turns in the "(" and ")" pattern probably don't exist much if at all; the skis are likely in the air at transition.

Then I thought some more, always a dangerous thing to do. It is quite possible to make a short repetitive movement and really feel it. It is difficult, though not impossible to change what you are doing in that movement, but you can easily change the next stroke, so to speak. If something feels good, you can change your weight or your thrust a little more to one side, or thrust more forward, higher, or lower, or slower, or faster, or many different ways with the next movement. Indeed you can alter what you are doing to make it better, based on what you are feeling. You can feel how the tip of your ski enters the snow, is directed by the resistance it meets, how that affects the movement. You adjust where you thrust your weight into your ski to change things to hit the sweet spot. You try to harmonize with ...er I better say...the snow. So, yeah it can happen.
Ghost:

Thanks for your post. You made me draw a 12/1 and 12/2 ft turn on a sheet of paper.
While 12/1 is not much offset the 12/2 is already quite a turn, agreed. My comparison to a hairpin was also incorrect: even the 12/1 differs.
(ItÂ´s not so easy for us to work with ft which we donÂ´t use at all even if you now itÂ´s 30 cm...)

There would probably be no much discusion about the bigger radius of the 12/2 turn - thatÂ´s why I picked just the 12/1 in my previous post.
I still wonder if anyone has something to say to the less pronounced turn.
I will also verify what I or the other think and/or say next week on the snow.
I have read all these posts and I still find that if all things were equal as Steve states, it would be an impossibility for steve to accelerate faster than nolo? I would be on closer scrutiny that nolo is in fact making rounder turns and Steve is making bananas. Just a hunch?

Certainly nolo's ability to distribute pressure more evenly throughout the arc is probably a little more refined than Steve's hence an ability to hide some speed control in the arc before the fall line.

Still it sounds like " ( " vs. "C" 's
I need to come back to this thread, and thanks to MTT for pointing it out.

Bud, I was following their tracks, so the arcs were the same. I still think that Tom/PM nailed it. I just hope I can re-discover the sensations as I head up this early season. I have been visualizing all summer, but need to reimagine these concepts...
No, Steve--I think everyone here is just trying to confuse you. Only Ghost had it right, way back on page 2, and even he seems to have abandoned his own position with his more recent posts.

The secret is KLISTER.

Clearly, Nolo's and Uncle Louie's skis had some sort of glue-like wax on them, that allowed them to go slower on the same line as yours. Waxing well is a skill!

Actually, I suspect that the truth lies in a combination of many things, and that Bud Heishman's point may have more validity than you give it credit for. Very small differences in line can make a very large difference in speed! Consider that, if you really were skiing exactly the same lines, and all else was equal, AND you went faster then they did, then it is THEY who should be asking YOU how you did it!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes

> Transitions. That's a biggy. Any rotation happening? A hitch in the giddyup?

> For/aft pressure distribution. Tips are slow, tails are fast.

> Absorbing the rebound? ILE does that ya know.

> Do a straight run wax test

> Some skis just generate more energy out of the turn.

> Are you sure the lines/tracks match EXACT? Or, said another way; how do you ski looking backwards?

> Minor scarve can be hard to detect.

> Size does matter.

> Are you the one who should be fixing something?
Im not quite sure that just size matter, but the amount of power you can put into the skis do, and a bigger stronger skier can put in more power. (The world speed record has been held by people of very different sizes).

Along with waxing you can put in ski edge preparation as well, too sharp edges slows you down, as does edges that hasnt been honed (is that the right word, stoned sounds more like afterskiing), and has rough edges.

But I think that when you put the pressure on the ski in the turn is also very important as someone said earlier. Imagine that you are skateing down in the fall-line on a slope. Then you would accelerate more compared to one that standing still on flat skis. And even more than someone thats crabwalking down.
So, if you put pressure on the skis before the fall-line the power resultant will point more downwards and you will accelerate faster than a skier that has more pressure after the fall-line.
This might look like accelerating out of the turn as the skis have to travel a longer way around the center of mass and looks like going faster, specially when thay catch up with the skier late in the turn.

Someone said this earlier too, and was asked which ski the outward pressure was made on.. Its easier to do it on the outer ski, but try to press on both, its an interresting feeling to sort of fall to the inside of the skis and hope that they will catch up with you.
Ssh:
A long time ago, an instructor told me that it's all about balance. The more I get into this stuff, the clearer and more profound those words become. IMO, the posts that have referred to balance, especially for-aft balance are closest to the mark in answering your question. I'd bet the farm that Nolo and Uncle Louie are standing in the middle of their skis and you are not quite.

cdnguy
1) You were following their tracks: .
They were breaking trial. You had easier going.

2) What skis did they have? What skis did you have?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cdnguy A long time ago, an instructor told me that it's all about balance. The more I get into this stuff, the clearer and more profound those words become. IMO, the posts that have referred to balance, especially for-aft balance are closest to the mark in answering your question. I'd bet the farm that Nolo and Uncle Louie are standing in the middle of their skis and you are not quite.
Perhaps, but I think it's more likely that my lack of extension in the belly of the turn coupled with my too-energetic loading of the skis and changing of the edges at transition are the real issues.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Old Swede But I think that when you put the pressure on the ski in the turn is also very important as someone said earlier. Imagine that you are skateing down in the fall-line on a slope. Then you would accelerate more compared to one that standing still on flat skis. And even more than someone thats crabwalking down. So, if you put pressure on the skis before the fall-line the power resultant will point more downwards and you will accelerate faster than a skier that has more pressure after the fall-line. This might look like accelerating out of the turn as the skis have to travel a longer way around the center of mass and looks like going faster, specially when thay catch up with the skier late in the turn.
Well said, and this brought up another long-term habit of mine: working for acceleration out of the turn. So, it make sense that I'm pushing off downhill at the top of the turn out of habit.

Crabwalking is also a drill I really need to work this season. I have a real problem with the motion involved, so clearly it's counter to my habitual motion.

I hope I can recapture the movements that Uncle Louie helped me find last spring.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado Actually, I suspect that the truth lies in a combination of many things, and that Bud Heishman's point may have more validity than you give it credit for. Very small differences in line can make a very large difference in speed! Consider that, if you really were skiing exactly the same lines, and all else was equal, AND you went faster then they did, then it is THEY who should be asking YOU how you did it!
Fair enough. It's certainly possible that this is so. I'd defer to those two on this.

From my perspective, I find it very difficult to subtly control my speed. Instead, I tend to use a lot of uphill to slow me down, and I notice that neither Uncle Louie or Nolo need to do that.

I also know that I don't get that extension going in the belly, as I mentioned, and I know that when UL helped me with that, I felt some very different sensations than the ones I'm used to having.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick > Transitions. That's a biggy. Any rotation happening? A hitch in the giddyup? > For/aft pressure distribution. Tips are slow, tails are fast. > Absorbing the rebound? ILE does that ya know.
Thanks, Rick...

I think that the transition is a big part of it. I tend to load up and then release in a hurry instead of being smoother about the edge change. I suspect that it also means that I'm rotating at the transition (at the point when I used to do the check-and-release).

What's ILE?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching